The Importance of the Rule of Law in National Security and Foreign Affairs

Since January 20th, 2025, the presidency of Donald Trump has seen a major shift in the political, economic, and social climate of the U.S., and has reignited national divisions while raising debates over governance, democracy, and the United States’ role in the world.

Suzanne Spaulding is the Senior Adviser for the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and former Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security. She has also served as Counsel for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives as well as the Central Intelligence Agency. Spaulding’s extensive career in national security has provided her with a unique perspective on how the rule of law maintains democratic stability, especially within times of political unrest and strain on governmental institutions. Drawing on experience within defense, intelligence, and the legislative branch, Spaulding spoke to the TCFR members on October 9, and stressed the importance of safeguarding the rule of law, not just a legal concern, but also a matter of national security vital to preserving public trust and maintaining U.S. democracy.

Why Should We Care About the Rule of Law?

Suzanne Spaulding, like other public leaders and all government officials, took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. The oath is not only a ceremonial formality but a promise to uphold the rule of law.   By defending the Constitution, we keep our country strong, protecting and securing democracy. The Constitution acts as our fundamental law, providing the framework ensuring no one is above accountability.  It is vital for economic security and represents our shared aspirations as a country, and Spaulding underscored that our commitment to the rule of law is a source of strength, preventing a wedge from being driven between the government and those who are governed. 

The U.S. Image 

Spaulding posed a pointed question: Do Americans not grow troubled by this trend, or are they unaware of its significance?  Spaulding referred to the growing erosion of judicial and institutional independence within the United States. It is a concern that extends beyond domestic politics and impacts how the country is viewed at an international level. If the rule of law is threatened domestically, it undermines how the U.S. is viewed abroad. Such a perception raises doubts about our reliability as an international partner and our ability to uphold the rule of law around the world. Spaulding acknowledged that there are certain rules or laws that Americans perceive as “wrong” but questioned why so many now appear indifferent when it comes to the rule of law itself. 

More than 50 cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court, many of which have implications for foreign security and the independence of federal agencies. For example, Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was recently fired, despite independent agencies historically only being permitted to fire “with cause.” Spaulding expressed her concern that lower courts are continuing to feel obligated to defer to President Trump, which complicates judicial independence, and the importance of such independence can be difficult to convey to the general public. 

Executive Power and Controversy

President Trump is the first U.S. president to impose widespread tariffs and has done so based on the statute International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president discretion to regulate foreign policy in times of emergency. Trump initially lost cases under the IEEPA twice, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear these appeals. 

Spaulding provided another controversial example referencing the president’s challenge against birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee that anyone born within the U.S. is automatically granted citizenship, as derived from the 14th Amendment. Spaulding noted that while this serves as a strong talking point for the president, who is aware that the courts would be unlikely to rule in his favor, it is ultimately a weak legal argument. Similarly, recent military strikes in the Caribbean resulted in over 20 deaths and have raised additional questions around presidential authority. While the president is allowed to use force in self-defense to prevent an imminent attack on the U.S., the courts are currently examining whether these strikes were not warranted as such. Utilization of such force raises tensions in executive power and underscores the role of Congress in maintaining the checks and balances depicted by the Constitution. 

Is the Rule of Law Taking a “Backseat”?

Immigration remains one of the most pressing topics in the U.S., particularly since President Trump’s re-election, and assists in raising the important question of whether the rule of law is being upheld or is taking a “backseat.” Spaulding highlighted the principle of due process, in which all individuals are entitled to fair legal procedures, and which remains an integral part of a functioning democracy. However, immigration enforcement is a legal procedure in which these laws can be perceived as being compromised.

Many of those facing potential deportation come from countries where trust in governments is already fragile, making it increasingly difficult to rely on U.S. governmental institutions. This is a matter that Congress has remained quiet on, and it is not just the president’s authority but also the increasingly aggressive manner of enforcement that involve the military that have sparked public concern. Spaulding warns that this approach can risk an internal domestic war, as traditional enforcement begins locally, then escalates to the National Guard as needed, and only rarely involves calling in federal forces. By passing these steps, it highlights why many fear that the rule of law is taking a backseat. 

Looking Forward: The Importance of Upholding Our Shared Aspirations 

While every presidential transition is challenging, Spaulding described this one as on a scale never seen before. Mass firings and abrupt changes have pushed the narrative of an intent to destabilize, and disinformation only intensifies these threats, promoting a sense of public distrust in the government. Despite this, Spaulding underscored the importance of maintaining our shared aspirations as a community, as this is crucial to push back against the internal division that only serves to weaken the U.S. The promise of democracy is its capacity to change, and change cannot happen without us. Spaulding acknowledged a pessimist outlook as the country faces a long recovery as trust and reputational damage is difficult to rebuild but offered many suggestions to cope with any sense of helplessness; finding ways to unplug, utilizing methods of distraction, and engaging locally are ways in which small changes can be made. Making a difference in one’s own community can help counter feelings of powerlessness and help restore a sense of control within our current state of the world. 

Senior Adviser Suzanne Spaulding and TCFR Vice-President and moderator William Banks engage in discussion in the Tucson Country Club at the October 9, 2025 event.